Scoring a Grade 4 Constructed Response
After reading an original informational article on urban trees, Grade 4 students answered: “How does the author support the claim that cities need more trees?” The teacher is scoring 30 responses with a two-point constructed-response rubric: 2 = valid inference with relevant evidence and explanation; 1 = limited inference or evidence with weak explanation; 0 = inaccurate or no relevant evidence. One response reads: “The author says cities need more trees. For example, 'trees cool streets by up to 5 degrees.' Another example is 'trees absorb rainwater.' This shows trees are helpful.” Twelve other responses quote evidence but do not explain it; nine paraphrase with no citation; five use irrelevant evidence. The teacher has one 30-minute reteach block and wants to improve explanation, not just evidence selection. The team is deciding whether to score the sample 1 or 2 and what to reteach.
1. Should the sample response receive a 1 or a 2? Justify the score using the rubric.
Read the worked answer
Score the response 1, not 2. The student selects two relevant pieces of evidence-cooling streets by up to 5 degrees and absorbing rainwater-so it is not a 0. But the final sentence, 'This shows trees are helpful,' is a generic assertion; it does not explain how cooling or water absorption supports the specific claim that cities need more trees. A 2 requires a valid inference plus explanation that connects evidence to the claim, such as 'Cooling streets by 5 degrees matters because cities with less shade face higher heat risks.' The response also does not distinguish between the two pieces of evidence or explain why either matters for city policy. Scoring it 2 would reward evidence quotation alone, which is the pattern in 12 other responses and would hide the reteaching need.
2. What should the 30-minute reteach focus on, and how should the teacher assess whether it worked?
Read the worked answer
Reteach explanation, not evidence hunting. Use a three-column model: evidence / what it shows / why it matters to the claim. Show the sample response and a stronger revision side by side; ask students to name what the revision added. Then give pairs one new piece of evidence from the article and have them complete the third column orally before writing. Provide a frame: 'The author includes ___ to show ___, which matters because ___.' Exit ticket: students revise the sample response by adding one causal or policy link, not by adding another quotation. Assess whether the new sentence connects the evidence to the claim; do not count the number of quotations. Follow up in the next reading response by requiring one explanation sentence for every evidence sentence.